Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (7/222)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

but its inviolability is less than that of the sanctuary of Mecca, because the prohibition of hunting in Mecca is established by textual evidence and scholarly consensus. As for the sanctuary of Medina, there is disagreement concerning it. However, the correct view is that Medina does have a sanctuary and that hunting therein is not permissible.

It differs from Mecca in that whoever brings game into the sanctuary of Medina retains ownership of it. As mentioned previously, according to the madhhab, whoever brings game into the sanctuary of Mecca must release it. But according to the stronger view, there is no difference between them: whoever brings game into either of the two sanctuaries—Mecca or Medina—retains ownership of it and may dispose of it as he wishes.

The evidence for this is the hadith of Abu Umayr, a young boy who had a small bird called a nugayr. He was delighted with it and would bring it to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who knew that he was fond of it. When the nugayr died, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would say to him in jest: “O Abu Umayr, what happened to the nugayr?” (1)

His statement, “No compensation is due for it”: the evidence is that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not prescribe any compensation for it. The basic principle is that one is free of liability and that no obligation is established.

Some scholars—this being one narration from Ahmad—held that compensation is due: namely, the killer’s personal effects are taken from him, such as his clothing, headcloth, and the like, based on a hadith concerning this which Muslim reported (2).

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in al-Adab, “Chapter: Being Affable with People” (6129), and Muslim in al-Adab, “Chapter: The Recommendation of Tahnik for a Newborn” (2150), on the authority of Anas ibn Malik, may Allah be pleased with him. (2) In al-Hajj, “Chapter: The Virtue of Madinah” (1364), on the authority of Amir ibn Sa'd: “Sa'd rode to his estate at al-Aqiq and found a slave cutting down trees or stripping their branches, so he confiscated his belongings. When Sa'd returned, the slave’s people came to him and asked him to return to their servant, or to them, what he had taken from him. He said, ‘God forbid that I should return something that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, granted me as spoils.’ He refused to return it to them.”

حرمته دون حرمة حرم مكة؛ لأن تحريم صيد مكة ثابت بالنص والإجماع، وأما حرم المدينة فمختلف فيه، ولكن القول الصحيح أن المدينة لها حرم وأنه لا يجوز الصيد فيه، إلا أنه يفارق مكة بأن من أدخل حرمها صيداً فهو له، ومكة سبق أن المذهب يجب عليه إطلاقه إذا أدخله الحرم، لكن على القول الراجح لا فرق بينهما، وهو أن من أدخل صيداً إلى الحرمين مكة أو المدينة، فهو ملكه يتصرف فيه كما يشاء، ودليل ذلك حديث أبي عمير، وهو غلام كان معه طائر صغير يسمى النُّغير وكان فرحاً به يأتي به إلى النبي ﷺ ويعرف النبي ﷺ أنه فرح به، فمات النغير فكان النبي ﷺ يقول له: «يا أبا عُمير ما فعل النُّغير» (١) يمازحه ﷺ. قوله: «ولا جزاء فيه»، والدليل أن النبي ﷺ لم يجعل فيه جزاء، فالأصل براءة الذمة، وعدم الوجوب. وقال بعض أهل العلم ـ وهو رواية عن أحمد ـ: إن فيه الجزاء، وهو سلب القاتل، أي: أخذ سلبه من ثوبه وغترته، وما أشبه ذلك، لحديث ورد في ذلك أخرجه مسلم (٢).

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الأدب/ باب الانبساط إلى الناس (٦١٢٩)؛ ومسلم في الآداب/ باب استحباب تحنيك المولود (٢١٥٠) عن أنس بن مالك ﵁. (٢) في الحج/ باب فضل المدينة (١٣٦٤) عن عامر بن سعد: «أن سعداً ركب إلى قصره بالعقيق، فوجد عبداً يقطع شجراً، أو يخبطه فسلبه، فلما رجع سعد جاءه أهل العبد فكلموه أن يرد على غلامهم، أو عليهم ما أخذ من غلامهم، فقال: معاذ الله أن أرد شيئاً نفلنيه رسول الله ﷺ، وأبى أن يرد عليهم».